Originally posted by sonshipIf you choose to propagate your ideology in public, it is going to come under scrutiny from those who find the things you say far-fetched or nonsensical. No one is trying to "catch" or "destroy" or "attack" anyone. Depicting yourself as paranoid or self-pitying does nothing to help your cause and it will not deflect questions and comments.
I can just see them peppering Him with questions of all kinds, lying in wait to catch Him in His words to gain some ground to attack. "Just get Him to talk more and more! We'll find something to use to destroy Him !"
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said: It means a when a baby is born it does not believe anything.
And I have never suggested otherwise. Its kind of obvious.
[b]Therefore by the dictionary definition (not yours) it is not an atheist when it is born.
So what does it matter?
Which means if you were not born an atheist then something convinced you to become an atheist. And that is what I am interested in.
I have already told you what m ...[text shortened]... atheist' by your definition and still are not atheists by your definition, nor are they theists.[/b]
You said: And I have never suggested otherwise. Its kind of obvious.
Are you purposefully lying about this or do you just suffer from short term memory loss? You specifically stated on the first page of this thread that you were born an atheist.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry forgot to ask this earlier. You say you became an atheist because Christianity didn't make sense. So that is why you became an atheist. So my question is why atheism? Does it make more sense? Is there more evidence for it?
I was born an atheist, then subsequently brought up as a Christian then at about the age of 12 I realised it just didn't make sense. It wasn't because of some 'negative experience' with religion. It was because I realised it wasn't true.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt depends on how you define "atheist" and whether it involves a conscious position concerning the rejection of supernatural deities. A newborn infant most certainly does not have the mental capacity to understand what a deity is so they do not believe in one or more gods. In that sense they are "atheists" but they obviously have not taken a specific position on the matter.
So what do you have to say about the dudes that claim that everyone is born an atheist?
Also, hypothetically if the supernatural were to exist, what kind of evidence for it would be acceptable to a naturalist?
Also, hypothetically if the supernatural were to exist, what kind of evidence for it would be acceptable to a naturalist?
Maybe you mean "materialist"? For a materialist of course only empirical evidence would suffice. But then, if there is empirical evidence, I would say it is natural and not supernatural. The whole concept of "supernatural" seems vague and ill-defined to me. BTW I am not a materialist per se -- a materialist would say that everything that exists is physical (I take it to be equivalent to physicalism, otherwise materialism makes no sense); I would say that the metaphysical may exist but it is irrelevant to us. A subtle difference, perhaps.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt has been said that atheists are very similar to theists in the sense that they reject most supernatural deities (there is an infinite possible number of them); atheists just reject one (group) more. It's not that one can cite "evidence" for not believing in the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, rather, the compelling evidence for their existence does not exist in the view of people not believing in them.
Sorry forgot to ask this earlier. You say you became an atheist because Christianity didn't make sense. So that is why you became an atheist. So my question is why atheism? Does it make more sense? Is there more evidence for it?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf theists are required to provide evidence for their beliefs, surely atheists should also provide evidence for their beliefs? If you claim that you don't believe in God(s), then what do you believe in? Nothing?
It has been said that atheists are very similar to theists in the sense that they reject most supernatural deities (there is an infinite possible number of them); atheists just reject one (group) more. It's not that one can cite "evidence" for not believing in the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, rather, the compelling evidence for their existence does not exist in the view of people not believing in them.
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistA rock is a 'perfect atheist' and something we should aspire to. A rock stands solid in its godless existence. It is impervious to religious speculation and just gets on with being a rock.
Rocks lack a belief in gods. Since that is stupid (so I hear), there must be something wrong with your definition.
Atheism requires an opinion on the subject of theism. Babies (and rocks) have no opinion on the subject, so they cannot be atheists. A better word to describe babies might be secular.
Atheism does not require an opinion on the subject of theism. A theist just wants an atheist to have an opinion on the subject of theism....Why is that?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNeither, you just have poor reading comprehension.
Are you purposefully lying about this or do you just suffer from short term memory loss?
You specifically stated on the first page of this thread that you were born an atheist.
And I was using the definition for the word 'atheist': 'lacking believe in a god or gods' as was subsequently explained to you.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeA rock exhibits no cognitive, critical thinking skills. Totally brain dead. Something all we should all aspire to?
A rock is a 'perfect atheist' and something we should aspire to. A rock stands solid in its godless existence. It is impervious to religious speculation and just gets on with being a rock.
Atheism does not require an opinion on the subject of theism. A theist just wants an atheist to have an opinion on the subject of theism....Why is that?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAtheism, (using your definition), is the most reasonable stance to take in the lack of evidence for a god or gods.
Sorry forgot to ask this earlier. You say you became an atheist because Christianity didn't make sense. So that is why you became an atheist. So my question is why atheism? Does it make more sense? Is there more evidence for it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadInitially you said you were born an atheist. Later you agree with me that a baby does not believe anything and you insist you have never suggested otherwise. So if you say that a baby doesn't believe anything and a baby is an atheist you are actually saying that an atheist does not believe anything. Lacking belief in something is not the same as not believing in anything. Your logic is at fault, and yet you will never admit it. Still you will continue to blame me for having poor comprehension skills as you have always done and continue to do.
Neither, you just have poor reading comprehension.
[b]You specifically stated on the first page of this thread that you were born an atheist.
And I was using the definition for the word 'atheist': 'lacking believe in a god or gods' as was subsequently explained to you.[/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCorrect. Using the definition: 'lacking belief in a god or gods' ( or not a theist).
Initially you said you were born an atheist.
Later you agree with me that a baby does not believe anything and you insist you have never suggested otherwise.
Correct.
So if you say that a baby doesn't believe anything and a baby is an atheist you are actually saying that an atheist does not believe anything.
No, that doesn't follow. The sky is blue. Birds can fly in the sky. My shirt is blue. Can birds fly in my shirt?
Your logic is at fault,
No, it is your lack of logic that is at fault.